Mueller Report Next Week?

[Cow Poke]

It's not about being anti-Trump or anti- love your Enemy. If this were anyone else you didn't like, You would be crying for the report, You would want the transparency. I'm amazed and shocked, but maybe I shouldn't be, the number of people that insisted Obama produce a birth certificate, insisted he just couldn't be American, simply because they didn't like him. I'm amazed now at those who won't allow the Clinton case to rest, and of course insisted that General Petraeous be charged, and insist on transparency with his charges. People are consistently calling for justice to be done with anyone they simply do not like, yet with Donald Trump this should all be hidden away. The key finding here is obstruction and that is what the legislature should have access too. With Nixon and Bill Clinton they both were impeached for something. And we the public and for certain the legislature even more so, has every right to know was there Obstruction? Not a summary. Loving the enemy has zero to do with it.
I think Bill you could take your own words and learn to love the Clintons and the Obamas and everyone else you see as a public threat and excuse them. I mean you know it would only be right.

I know a little bit about how this stuff actually works, so I would not be crying for the report anymore than I did when Whitewater and the various Clinton scandals were being investigated. There's a process - there are rules. There are some things that can be made public, and other things that cannot immediately be made public.

Nobody is above the law - including the report writers/demanders/disseminators/whatever.

[Cow Poke]

Do you think that Mueller would not have brought charges if Trump had broken the law? He spent two years trying to find something. Why would he not use it if he had it?

If something subsequently comes out concerning collusion or law breaking that can be shown that Mueller knew it --- it'd be a whole outcry about "what did he know and when did he know it"?

Meanwhile, shifty little Schiff has claimed he has proof - why didn't / doesn't he produce it?

[Catholicity]

If something subsequently comes out concerning collusion or law breaking that can be shown that Mueller knew it --- it'd be a whole outcry about "what did he know and when did he know it"?

Meanwhile, shifty little Schiff has claimed he has proof - why didn't / doesn't he produce it?

I'm fine with Mueller's report concluding no collusion. Where we should be concerned as a people is obstruction of justice. And of course that needs to be left to the courts to oversee. I'm ok with the justice system determining this. What I'm not ok with is setting the precident that someone with the exhorbitant amount of resources, money and wealth that Trump has gets away with obstruction, just because he has the money.
Given the precedent that we've seen recently, celebrities have been getting away with bribing their kids into college, Jussie Smollet getting away with a faked crime, and IMO Donald Trump, whose gotten away with a- lot- due to his status of "I have money." For me I want to make sure the system is working. And I sure hope that if crimes were committed they will come to light.

[NorrinRadd]

I'm fine with Mueller's report concluding no collusion. Where we should be concerned as a people is obstruction of justice. And of course that needs to be left to the courts to oversee. I'm ok with the justice system determining this. ...

But it's not the job of "the courts." It was the job of Mueller. I haven't seen any legal scholar say otherwise. He punted. Mueller is not an "Independent Counsel," he's a "Special Counsel." He is part of the DOJ. His being a wuss and punting kicked the decision up to his superiors -- Barr, Rosenstein, et al.

[Cow Poke]

But it's not the job of "the courts." It was the job of Mueller. I haven't seen any legal scholar say otherwise. He punted. Mueller is not an "Independent Counsel," he's a "Special Counsel." He is part of the DOJ. His being a wuss and punting kicked the decision up to his superiors -- Barr, Rosenstein, et al.

I don't think hes' as bad, however, as Comey, who laid out a solid case for prosecution of Hillary, then took it upon himself to announce that "no reasonable prosecutor...."

Cath - did that anger you?

[Mountain Man]

But it's not the job of "the courts." It was the job of Mueller. I haven't seen any legal scholar say otherwise. He punted. Mueller is not an "Independent Counsel," he's a "Special Counsel." He is part of the DOJ. His being a wuss and punting kicked the decision up to his superiors -- Barr, Rosenstein, et al.

Right, it's the DOJ's job to review a case and determine if chargers should be filed, and then they take it to the judicial branch.

[Catholicity]

I don't think hes' as bad, however, as Comey, who laid out a solid case for prosecution of Hillary, then took it upon himself to announce that "no reasonable prosecutor...."

Cath - did that anger you?

Let me shoot you a pm

[Tassman]

You're frothing Jim..

He's right though. William Barr was 'handpicked' by Trump and is doing exactly what Trump appointed him for. He’s ‘partisan'. Stacey Abrams branded him an “avowed partisan who in part auditioned for the job by disparaging the Mueller enquiry and report in advance. Until we get the actual report, there’s no knowing how much Barr ‘spin’ we’re getting.

[Mountain Man]

He's right though. William Barr was 'handpicked' by Trump and is doing exactly what Trump appointed him for. He’s ‘partisan'. Stacey Abrams branded him an “avowed partisan who in part auditioned for the job by disparaging the Mueller enquiry and report in advance. Until we get the actual report, there’s no knowing how much Barr ‘spin’ we’re getting.

This is my response to similar nonsense in the other thread...

You may also recall that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who is no friend of Trump and who appointed Mueller and actively oversaw the investigation from day one, also signed off on AG Barr's summary. Furthermore, Barr consulted with multiple other individuals who offered their insight and expertise. From the summary:

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense. Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."

It seems to me that Barr shrewdly covered all his bases and made a point of ensuring that he couldn't be accused of political or personal bias. Refusing to accept Rosenstein's resignation until after the investigation was concluded was a particularly brilliant move.

[Sparko]

I'm fine with Mueller's report concluding no collusion. Where we should be concerned as a people is obstruction of justice. And of course that needs to be left to the courts to oversee. I'm ok with the justice system determining this. What I'm not ok with is setting the precident that someone with the exhorbitant amount of resources, money and wealth that Trump has gets away with obstruction, just because he has the money.
Given the precedent that we've seen recently, celebrities have been getting away with bribing their kids into college, Jussie Smollet getting away with a faked crime, and IMO Donald Trump, whose gotten away with a- lot- due to his status of "I have money." For me I want to make sure the system is working. And I sure hope that if crimes were committed they will come to light.

How would his money have gotten him off of obstruction charges? Are you saying he paid off Mueller? What makes you believe Mueller woudln't have gotten him on obstruction charges if he were guilty of them?

[Mountain Man]

How would his money have gotten him off of obstruction charges? Are you saying he paid off Mueller? What makes you believe Mueller woudln't have gotten him on obstruction charges if he were guilty of them?

There's reason to believe that Mueller actually wrapped up the collusion investigation fairly quickly (after all, without evidence, what was there to investigate?), and that the bulk of his efforts were aimed at nailing Trump for obstruction, even to the point that Democrats were all but daring Trump to fire Mueller or intervene in any way, shape, or form just so they could have a stronger case. Surely if Trump approached Mueller or anybody on his team with a bribe, Mueller would have indicted him on the spot. There is little doubt in my mind that Mueller had his eye on making history as being the first prosecutor ever to take down a sitting president.

[Tassman]

This is my response to similar nonsense in the other thread...

Barr explains that Mueller did not come to a conclusion about whether Trump obstructed justice, but that Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein merely decided that the evidence isn’t clear enough to charge the president.

But there are many, many pages of Mueller “evidence”, which is the point, and until we have that evidence we have no way of assessing the pro-Trump ‘spin’ re Barr’s summary. Or the “particularly brilliant move” to protect Trump as per your link…which after all is why Trump appointed him in the first place.

And, if there’s No Collusion (Trump wasn't exonerated) why have so many lied about meeting and talking with the Russians??

[Cow Poke]

Barr explains that Mueller did not come to a conclusion about whether Trump obstructed justice, but that Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein merely decided that the evidence isn’t clear enough to charge the president.

But there are many, many pages of Mueller “evidence”, which is the point, and until we have that evidence we have no way of assessing the pro-Trump ‘spin’ re Barr’s summary. Or the “particularly brilliant move” to protect Trump as per your link…which after all is why Trump appointed him in the first place.

And, if there’s No Collusion (Trump wasn't exonerated) why have so many lied about meeting and talking with the Russians??

Many of your less rabid liberal anti-Trump associates have moved on from "collusion" to other assaults.

[rogue06]

Many of your less rabid liberal anti-Trump associates have moved on from "collusion" to other assaults.

Some still won't let go

Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-Cal) Chair of the House Intelligence Committee is doubling down still proclaiming that "Undoubtedly there is collusion." His continuous rants including earlier repeated claims that he has mountains direct evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians is enough for CNN's OutFront host Erin Burnett to insist that Mueller's report is a fraud. While discussing the matter with CNN crime and justice reporter Shimon Prokupecz she actually suggested that Mueller never actually looked into the matter of collusion saying "Was that even part of Mueller's investigation answering that question?"

And on his CNN program Cuomo Prime Time Chris Cuomo is contending that "there could be ample proof" of collusion in Mueller’s full report "folded into the counterintelligence investigation that the AG didn't even mention in his summary."

Over on MSNBCs Hardball host Chris Matthews continues to angrily rant "If the President was so damn innocent, why does it take two years to get cleared of collusion?"

After Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Cal) was asked about Mueller's report on Fox News and petulantly proclaimed

Donald Trump acts in Russia’s behalf. When he meets with Vladimir Putin, he won’t tell the country what was said, and he essentially took the notes from the interpreter. That really worries me. Just because he’s not been criminally indicted for collusion doesn’t mean he has conducted colluding-types of behavior with the Russians. We’ve seen this president have his campaign take meetings with Russians where dirt was offered. We’ve seen the president say on a stage, “Russia, keep hacking,” and we’ve seen the president constantly lie.

And of course there is (Rep) Mad Maxine Waters (D-Cal) who after the report was released was in full unhinged denial mode

This president has a way of trying to get into people’s heads and indoctrinate them. He has been saying no collusion, no collusion over and over again for a long time. He’s going to try to conclude that this report is proof that there is no collusion and you have a lot of his sycophants who will take the nod from him and they’ll say the same thing

[Sparko]

Maxine Waters is back-pedaling now....


Maxine Waters tones down Trump impeachment talk, says Dems never seriously discussed it

U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., has toned down her calls for President Trump's impeachment since Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded there was no collusion with Russia, admitting that forceful removal of the president has “never been discussed” as a realistic strategy among Democrats.

Waters, whose calls for impeachment and support for the now-disproven Russia-collusion theory helped boost her national profile, made the striking admission Monday, despite saying just days earlier that the Mueller report didn’t signal “the end of anything.”

“I think we do nothing now but concentrate on getting the information, getting that report,” Waters said, in reference to the report by Mueller, the conclusions of which were provided by Attorney General William Barr.

“[Impeachment has] never been discussed as a strategy for this caucus. It’s only a few of us,” she added, according to Politico.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/max...mong-democrats